John Barone wrote:
> Yes, that would be fine.
>
> I wasn't privy to the original discussion that resulted in the MUST.
> So, I don't know if there are some client requirements/concerns that
> would be stepped on by changing it to a SHOULD.
> ...
I would assume that any query that DAV:limits itself, or results in
server-enforced truncation, is unlikely to be useful in a programmatic
client. So I wouldn't expect this to be a problem.
BR, Julian